Does anybody have accurate info on how these 2 compare in SIZE ?? Is the G26 really that much smaller?

The Glock subcompact is smaller but the M&P compact is designed for more comfort.

Here is a link to a comparison photograph of the two pistols:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/attachme...0&d=1216400653

If you are really looking for an easier to carry 9mm semi-auto pistol you may want to look at a Walther PPS. The new PPS is surprisingly thin and easy to carry

The Glock is smaller. I have the Glock as a deep concealment gun. Sold the M&P 9C because I liked the Glock better.

M&P 40c & G27 comparison:






Handled and fired examples of the M&P 9c and G26? The overall ergonomics of the M&P 9c makes it feel smaller and slimmer. Noticeably so with the smallest grip insert. (Too small for my hands.) The mag capacity of the M&P 9c is a slight advantage (unless you're restricted to 10-rd mags). The felt recoil of the M&P 9c makes for even better controllability than that of the G26 (which is a very good gun in that regard, in my opinion).

If I didn't already own a 3913, CS9, SW99 9c & G26 I'd probably buy a M&P 9c to go along with my M&P 40c. The 9c is a much better handling gun than the 40c from my experience with both.

Try examples of both, if possible, with some of whatever ammunition you commonly use in 9mm and see if one or the other stands out to you for your needs and personal preferences.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

I love S&W, but personally I would get the Glock. It is an excellent gun, one of the most popular glocks right now. You can do your own trigger job for $13.25 if you have any qualms at all about the trigger. It is smaller, durable, and Glocks are utterly reliable.

Here is the big difference IMO:


Unless talking about pocket concealment or ankle carry I prefer the compact M&P

__________________
NRA Certified Instructor

Yeah, I'm also inclined to feel that the height at the rear (butt plate to rear sight) of each of the guns is the most noticeable difference. Whether that quarter inch is worth the additional 2 rounds of mag capacity in the M&P 9c is debatable (or 1 extra round for the M&P 40c).

It might make it more appealing for some folks who won't have to slip their little finger underneath the mag when gripping the gun, or, it might make pocket holster carry & presentation more difficult depending on the size of the pocket opening.

This is one of those instances in which the 'compact' S&W is virtually the same size as the 'subcompact' Glock.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

If you want nothing but 100% reliability there is nothing on this earth that could compare to a Glock

Thankks for the replies. I am thinking of getting back into the 9c, as i have the 5in pro and love it. But the G26 is probably the best all around carry 9mm on the market.

Unless it's a 3rd Gen Smith.

I've gotta side with Fastbolt here, I bought a M&P40c at the beginning of the year. It is my first polymer pistol. Personally I've never liked the ergonomics of the Glock. I've shot a friend's 27 on a number of occasions and find the M&P much easier to shoot. Recoil between the two with any given load the M&P will have less percieved recoil every time.

The extra 1/2" grip lenght doesn't make any difference to me, I carry mine in a Galco Ankle Lite. Due to the weight distribution of the little pistol it actually rides better than a M60 in an Ankle Glove even given the additional weight of the M&P. I do wish Galco would produce the Ankle Glove for the M&P, I prefer the molded leath.

The M&P was a good purchase for me, I've had 3rd gen pistols since the early '90s. I can't say that I like the M&P as much as I do the various 3rd gen guns I have, but the M&P fills a gap that none of the 3rd gen pistols could fill for me.

Cheers,
Sam

__________________
Beware the man with one gun...

+1 i would jump over three of those glops to get the one smith

__________________
SWCA#2208
KK4EMO

I own both the 9c and 26. I was lucky enough to be taught by ex LE about grip so I adapt quickly to each. I find them to be equally accurate. Plus to 26 for conceal and ease of parts relacement, plus to 9c for 2 more rounds, parts replacement more involved for casual user. Use what you feel best with but I don't think you can go wrong with either.

Agree with ColColt, nothing sweeter than a 3rd generation.

Dave

Not in my experience, the only gun I've ever had any problems with was a G23 that my cousin had, it stovepiped about 3 times every mag when I shot it. I would say that it was pretty far from 100%.

Got that right. Sold my Blocks, bought a 3953 and a 6906.

__________________
Sure you did

Other than my S&W M&P 9c!

Glocks get the reliability nod because they have been around so long. They make a gun that works and doesn't change the name; just minor tweaks. The M&P is an excellent and reliable gun but without the longevity factor to show. I fear it never will be either. Most other companies can't go without changing names and models ever so often. So our M&P's probably won't be made in 10 years time, never getting a chance to become long term reliable. The exception is the J-frame, at least for now.

LuddaBudda, you know firearms have to be shot with hands and fingers correct. Every three rounds, every magazine, just to me in my opinion sounds like shooter error.

Could have been me and not the gun, I guess the grip placement I used on all the 1911s, Berettas, Sigmas, Sigs, CZs, Makarovs, Rugers, and various other autos just doesn't work with glocks, maybe it has something to do with the weird grip angle they use.

I too have never been able to shoot glocks well. I do a lot of point and shoot practice and to me the odd grip angle has me shooting over the targets. In a time of crisis I don't want to have to remember nose down. The natural pointing angle of all 3 of my S&W polymer frames (Sigma, M&P 40c, SD40) make them awesome shooters. In my point and shoot drills I'm hitting 95% plus using no sights. I also practice draw and shoot as well as turning and shooting. Now if you are used to glocks and only shoot glocks I would tell you to get the glock because of the muscle memory but if not I wouldn't recommend it.

Was recently at a "practical pistol" course/clinic made up of about twenty students and a wide degree of quality manufacturers represented.Only 2 pistols were malfunction free, both 3rd gen Smiths. Not scientific by any means but it sure influenced my definition of reliability.

I currently own a M&P compact 40 , I have owned at least 4 sub-compact Glocks. The M&P is definitely more attractive than the Glock , I like the ability to use a tactical light on the M&P. I also like the "Carry Clip" that you can use with a Glock. Each has it's virtue's.

Although the agencies using 3rd gen S&W's have certainly dwindled, this isn't an uncommon observation, in my experienced, anyway.

I went through a week long undercover/plainclothes tactics & shooting class several years ago. I was carrying a SW99 40 at the request of the head instructor, and another guy from my unit was carrying an early production issued 5903 (which made the gun at least 10 years old and fairly well worn by that time). At one point early in the class we were the subject of some good-natured joking about our S&W guns. (Even though there was one guy carrying a S&W revolver. )

They tried to pull the instructor in on their joking at one point (a SWAT instructor/armorer for another agency who carried a Colt 1911). He shrugged when the joking reached the point where it was actually starting to become noticeable when he was running the range scenarios, and finally said that while he preferred a Colt .45, that in all the years he'd been teaching SWAT and special tactics classes that he'd seen all manner of guns experience malfunctions ... except that he'd never seen 3rd gen S&W's do so in any of his classes and he wasn't surprised that our S*&W's were running fine.

The joking fell flat at that point ... and didn't seem to come up again ... especially once the 2 guys carrying issued Glock G35's started experiencing feeding stoppages (new issue federal ammunition, BTW).

All kinds of things can happen in shooting classes with all manner of handguns, rifles and shotguns. The instructor update class I attended a while back included a fair number of guys carrying issues HK USP's ... and nobody was carrying any Glocks (which I thought was odd, especially since the class was full and had drawn students from all over). One of the guys using a HK USP 45 had repeated feeding stoppages and malfunctions until he had a chance to detail strip his weapon down during a lunch break and resolve whatever problem was causing the problem.

You go to enough classes and see enough service-type weapons ... meaning not personally-owned , modified, tweaked and "improved" game guns ... and you're going to see things happen from time to time. It's the nature of equipment, regardless of who makes it.

Now, back to the nature of the thread topic, both smallish pistols are good quality examples of offerings from a couple of the respected names in the firearms business. I'd think either would serve an owner/user very well. As a trained armorer for both products I feel they're both easy enough to work on for support & repair purposes.

Both companies offer good warranties, but S&W has the definite advantage with their lifetime warranty to the original owner which includes free pre-paid shipping.

I happen to like my G26. It's actually my favorite Glock within the entire product line. It's not as forgiving of grip or ammunition-related issues as my other small 9's (3913, CS9 & SW99 9c), but it's a fine small 9mm pistol.

Yes, the unique Glock grip angle does require some adjustment on the part of some folks who have been trained to shoot any number of other pistol designs. I found it relatively easy to adopt to in that regard, though. While I strongly prefer a 1911-style SA or a good TDA (DA/SA) pistol for daily 'working' roles, the Glock's 'constant double action' trigger is predictable and consistent enough to allow me to wring some very good accuracy out of it. I've used my G26 to shoot at rather small targets out to 90-95's with good success, and it does just fine with targets within the much closer ranges of what's considered reasonable handgun/defensive distances.

Does it shoot as consistently accurately as my 3913 or my SW99 9c? Well, not for me, and it's not like I haven't invested some time comparing them. I've lost track of the rounds which have been fired through my 3913, but I know I've exceeded 10,000 rounds through both my G26 and my SW99 9c. They're pretty much known quantities to me at this point.

It's not a bad thing to be faced with a situation where you're choosing between a couple of good choices.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

Well I started my "plastic" gun experience earlier this year after being primarily a 1911 guy. First was a G26. Liked it "ok" but didn't love it. Then I ran into a like new G27 that I couldn't pass up. Could not shoot the 27 to save myself...The 26 shot ok but had to really concentrate on grip as I have small hands. Then I ended up getting a 40c on the last day of the $50 reabate. I can shoot circles around my (now sold) 26 and (soon to be sold) 27. I do like how glocks are made and all the hoslter options available. However when it comes down to hitting a target and "Feel", the 40c is a big time winner for me.

Ive shot both the glocks and Mp's alot. After several thousand rounds only the Glock has malfunctioned. Also the M&P's I shoot much more accuratley than the Glocks. So me reliability goes to the M&P.